Back
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ashok Jindal, J, K. Anpazhakan, Technical Member
M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of CGST & CX, Ranchi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's engagement in manufacturing and facts surrounding the acquisition and modernization of the factory. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. investigation and allegations leading to the denial of cenvat credit. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. observations regarding eligibility criteria for input services. (Para 9 , 10 , 15) |
| 4. legal evaluation of cenvat credit eligibility and reliance on previous case law. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. final determination and acceptance of cenvat credit claims. (Para 48 , 49) |
Order : [Per Shri Ashok Jindal]
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various excisable goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 such as Wire Rods, TMT Bars, Angles, Rounds, and other variants of Wire Rod and TMT Bars. In addition to it, the Appellant also clears various scrap materials (after payment of excise duty) which are generated during the course
3. The Appellant acquired a steel plant at Patratu based on the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Jharkhand in 2007, which was earlier a sick unit of Bihar Alloy Steel Limited („BASL‟). When the Appellant acquired t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
